Saturday

Those who follow Tao believe that Tao progresses through phases. They apply this principle to all levels of their outlook, from cosmology to the states of growth in a person’s life. On the macrocosmic level, they point to the rotation of the stars as evidence of smooth progression. In a person’s life, they recognize the stages of aging beginning with childhood and ending with death.

Each one of us must go from phase to phase in our development. If we stay too long in one stage, we will be warped or stunted in our growth. If we rush through a stage, then we will gain none of the rewards or learning experiences of that phase. Subsequent growth will be thrown off-balance; we will either have to go back and make it up, or, in the cases of experiences that can never be repeated, lose out on them forever. The proper discerning of these transitions is essential.

As we go through our various stages in life, it is important to mark the shift from one stage to another. Recognition is very important. We must understand that we are leaving behind one part of life and entering another. Sometimes, we mark this with a rite of passage such as graduation or marriage. At other times, it may be a personal declaration made privately. Whatever the reason, it is important to know exactly when to close one phase and when to open the next. That is why it is said that one counts the spokes on the heavenly wheel as it turns: It is the measure of our lives.

Friday

he court-martial of an Army mechanic who refused to deploy to Iraq came to a sudden halt Wednesday when a military judge ordered a new investigative hearing for the soldier.

Sgt. Kevin Benderman was to stand trial Thursday on charges of desertion and missing movement, but the judge, Col. Stephen Henley, ruled that the investigating officer who recommended trying him in a general court-martial had compromised her impartiality in an e-mail to a military prosecutor.

Fort Stewart commanders decided to press ahead immediately with the new Article 32 hearing to determine whether to send Benderman’s case back to a general court-martial. Benderman said he had been ordered to report to the hearing Thursday morning.

“This is very rushed,” Benderman told reporters. “I wish it would go ahead and be over with, but I think now we’re going to get a more fair hearing.”

Maj. Pamela Stephens, chief of administrative law at Fort Stewart, said the ruling does not throw out the charges against Benderman - for which he could face up to seven years in prison, reduction in rank to private and a dishonorable discharge.

Benderman, a Fort Stewart armored-vehicle mechanic, skipped his 3rd Infantry Division unit’s deployment flight Jan. 8, just 10 days after giving his commanders notice that he was seeking a discharge as a conscientious objector.

Benderman, 40, had already served one tour in Iraq during the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The 3rd Infantry Division soldier says what he saw there - a young girl clutching a badly burned arm, dogs feeding on corpses in a mass grave and Iraqi civilians drinking from mud puddles - left him morally opposed to returning to war.

Col. Stephen R. Henley says an investigator showedappearance of bias in the desertion case of the 3rd ID soldier.

U.S. Army judge granted a defense request and threw out a crucial report Wednesday in the desertion case against Sgt. Kevin Benderman.

The conclusions, which formed the basis for the case against the 10-year veteran, may have revealed an opinion on his guilt by the officer who conducted the official inquiry, the judge said.

The ruling means Benderman's general court-martial - scheduled to begin this morning - will not go forward today.

Instead, a second investigative inquiry will begin at 8 a.m., according to Benderman.

The sergeant was charged with desertion shortly after applying for conscientious objector status in December. After having served one tour in Iraq, Benderman has said he cannot fight there again.

Col. Stephen R. Henley, Circuit Judge for the 2nd Judicial Circuit, said "it may be reasonably perceived" that Lt. Col. Linda Taylor "expressed an opinion" in an e-mail and fax she sent to the post's top prosecutor and his assistant assigned to Benderman's case.

Taylor, formerly the top prosecutor at Ft. Stewart who is now assigned as the legal adviser to the post's hospital, said from the witness stand Wednesday that she used a "poor choice of words" in her memos to her former co-workers.

In the January 27 e-mail and fax, Taylor told Lt. Col. Charles Walters and Capt. Jonathan DeJesus that while she held Walters' job from January to August in 2003 during the first deployment of Operation Iraqi Freedom, "Sgt. Benderman did not desert."

Taylor did not send the defense lawyers the e-mail or fax, which included a list of her qualifications to serve as the investigative officer in the inquiry, called an Article 32.

Taylor put together the list after Maj. Scot Sikes, one of the sergeant's lawyers, challenged her appointment because she had so recently been a prosecutor.

Military law prohibits an "accuser" from being in charge of an Article 32.

Sikes said he became aware of her memos only after he raised those objections about Taylor's appointment by Lt. Col. Noel Nicholle to serve as the investigator. While arguing his motion to have Taylor's report thrown out, Sikes questioned her ethics and characterized her communications as ex parte, a legal taboo. Henley didn't reach that far in his ruling.

he court-martial of an Army mechanic who refused to deploy to Iraq came to a sudden halt Wednesday when a military judge ordered a new investigative hearing for the soldier.

Sgt. Kevin Benderman was to stand trial Thursday on charges of desertion and missing movement, but the judge, Col. Stephen Henley, ruled that the investigating officer who recommended trying him in a general court-martial had compromised her impartiality in an e-mail to a military prosecutor.

Fort Stewart commanders decided to press ahead immediately with the new Article 32 hearing to determine whether to send Benderman’s case back to a general court-martial. Benderman said he had been ordered to report to the hearing Thursday morning.

“This is very rushed,” Benderman told reporters. “I wish it would go ahead and be over with, but I think now we’re going to get a more fair hearing.”

Maj. Pamela Stephens, chief of administrative law at Fort Stewart, said the ruling does not throw out the charges against Benderman - for which he could face up to seven years in prison, reduction in rank to private and a dishonorable discharge.

Benderman, a Fort Stewart armored-vehicle mechanic, skipped his 3rd Infantry Division unit’s deployment flight Jan. 8, just 10 days after giving his commanders notice that he was seeking a discharge as a conscientious objector.

Benderman, 40, had already served one tour in Iraq during the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The 3rd Infantry Division soldier says what he saw there - a young girl clutching a badly burned arm, dogs feeding on corpses in a mass grave and Iraqi civilians drinking from mud puddles - left him morally opposed to returning to war.

Col. Stephen R. Henley says an investigator showedappearance of bias in the desertion case of the 3rd ID soldier.

U.S. Army judge granted a defense request and threw out a crucial report Wednesday in the desertion case against Sgt. Kevin Benderman.

The conclusions, which formed the basis for the case against the 10-year veteran, may have revealed an opinion on his guilt by the officer who conducted the official inquiry, the judge said.

The ruling means Benderman's general court-martial - scheduled to begin this morning - will not go forward today.

Instead, a second investigative inquiry will begin at 8 a.m., according to Benderman.

The sergeant was charged with desertion shortly after applying for conscientious objector status in December. After having served one tour in Iraq, Benderman has said he cannot fight there again.

Col. Stephen R. Henley, Circuit Judge for the 2nd Judicial Circuit, said "it may be reasonably perceived" that Lt. Col. Linda Taylor "expressed an opinion" in an e-mail and fax she sent to the post's top prosecutor and his assistant assigned to Benderman's case.

Taylor, formerly the top prosecutor at Ft. Stewart who is now assigned as the legal adviser to the post's hospital, said from the witness stand Wednesday that she used a "poor choice of words" in her memos to her former co-workers.

In the January 27 e-mail and fax, Taylor told Lt. Col. Charles Walters and Capt. Jonathan DeJesus that while she held Walters' job from January to August in 2003 during the first deployment of Operation Iraqi Freedom, "Sgt. Benderman did not desert."

Taylor did not send the defense lawyers the e-mail or fax, which included a list of her qualifications to serve as the investigative officer in the inquiry, called an Article 32.

Taylor put together the list after Maj. Scot Sikes, one of the sergeant's lawyers, challenged her appointment because she had so recently been a prosecutor.

Military law prohibits an "accuser" from being in charge of an Article 32.

Sikes said he became aware of her memos only after he raised those objections about Taylor's appointment by Lt. Col. Noel Nicholle to serve as the investigator. While arguing his motion to have Taylor's report thrown out, Sikes questioned her ethics and characterized her communications as ex parte, a legal taboo. Henley didn't reach that far in his ruling.

immy Massey still has the tattoos marking his commitment to the U.S. Marine Corps. And the Latin phrases for honor, courage and faithfulness ingrained in every recruit still flow mellifluously off his tongue with a Southern drawl.

But to hear the former Marine recruiter speak now, two years removed from the front lines in Iraq, it's easy to mistake him for a peacenik who always opposed the war.

"The purpose of war is to gain money, and who do you think benefits from war? Corporations," he told about 100 students at the Roberto Clemente Student Development Center in Ypsilanti earlier this week.

The talk was among several Massey will make locally by the end of his five-day stay in Ann Arbor to share his experience and raise money for his organization, Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Its 150 members nationwide advocate for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops, and share their evocative war stories at schools, universities and community gatherings.

The 33-year-old Texas native is shunned by his former comrades and veterans. Former supporters and families that welcomed him into homes for three years as a recruiter where he currently lives in Waynesville, N.C., call him a modern-day Benedict Arnold.

Ironically, Massey said, the same qualities he obtained while in the Marines now drive him to speak out against the military and how it's conducted the Iraq war, particularly in regards to civilians.

He said his transformation began in the spring of 2003 when a red Kia sped toward his unit's checkpoint near Baghdad Stadium, ignoring warning signals. The Marines opened fire, killing three of the four occupants, all civilians.

More and more civilian deaths occurred similarly as they and soldiers received conflicting messages from the military, Massey said. He was told to consider any Iraqi a possible insurgent and civilians were told to go about their daily business and not fear coalition troops. It was a lethal mix, he recalls, culminating in the deaths of more than 30 civilians in one 48-hour span.

"I lost it," Massey said. "It got so bad that every time I laid my head on my pillow I thought of the faces of the people we killed."

Once in Iraq, Massey admits he was off the anti-depressants he took while working as a recruiter. Those medications now keep him grounded and focused, he says, along with therapy and his new wife, Jackie, who travels with him.

In 2003, after a 12-year career, Massey was honorably discharged with an 80 percent disability for post traumatic stress disorder and major depression. It's ammunition his detractors use to cloud his message about the war and civilian deaths, but a reality all the same, he said.

Local recruiters for the U.S. Marines and U.S. Army declined to comment for this story, but their superiors said they doubt Massey's message will resonate locally.

Ypsilanti and Howell have been fruitful recruiting grounds in recent years, said Master Sgt. Mike Giannetti, spokesman for the U.S. Marine Corps Recruiting Office in Troy.

In 2004, the Marines' Ypsilanti recruiting station, physically based in Pittsfield Township, enlisted more than the 10 other stations in a recruiting region spanning from Port Huron to Howell and into northern Ohio, Giannetti said.

The Ypsilanti and Howell stations have both ranked in the top 20 percent for the past five years, he said.

"People in those areas are very patriotic and most come from hard-working, blue-collar families with a history of military service and understand what we're about," Giannetti said.

Giannetti said he was not aware of Massey's visit to Michigan, though recruiters know his name and are familiar with, but indifferent to, his campaign.

"We can't worry about what everyone's saying. But that's what we fight for, to give someone the right to speak their mind," he said.

Massey, just ending a month-long jaunt that took him along the East Coast and to Minnesota, says he'll talk about the introspective shift the war brought about as long as people will listen.

Mohammed Thabateh, 14, of Ypsilanti, said he never considered joining the military and saw no sense in doing so regardless of his personal circumstances after hearing Massey's speech.

"In a bad situation you've got to do what you've got to do, but the military sends you out to kill, like a hit man," he said.

Every day, hundreds of thousands of Americans wake up knowing that they might die that day. Everyday these same Americans put their lives on the line for America's ideals and values. America honors our veterans with Purple Hearts, Medals of Honor and parades, but what happens when the same men and women who sacrificed for our nation are left out in the cold, homeless and impoverished?

Fortunately, there are many organizations to help veterans. Large cities across the nation have shelters and programs directed toward providing a warm place to sleep and opportunities to find a job. Sadly, these programs aren't doing enough. In the last year, shelters have housed more veterans who have returned to America than they would have liked to have seen.

These veterans came home to their country, but none of them had a place to live. Once they return home, they are forced back into the real world with the horrors of war still very real. Post traumatic stress disorder, common after the Vietnam War, is becoming more and more common after Iraq. PTSD is one of the main reasons many veterans after Vietnam came home to drug addictions, unemployment and poverty.

It is true that the numbers of homeless veterans now are small, but the fact remains that they are rising. The Black Veterans for Social Justice, an organization in Brooklyn, saw only a few veterans from Iraq two years ago. Now, over a hundred occupy their shelter.

We, as a nation, cannot allow the men and women who fight for us to be left on the street with nothing to eat, no job and nowhere to sleep. Men and women in the armed services spend years training and in active duty during war. They return home to higher housing costs, but have the same minimum wages they received before they shipped out. While the government does provide benefits for veterans, the gap between where active service benefits apply and veteran benefits apply is sometimes too wide.

Not only returnees from Iraq are homeless. Over 500,000 veterans from past conflicts are homeless in America. The Veterans Administration was faced with this number in 2004, but only had enough funding to provide aid to 100,000 of them. The United States population has shown tremendous support for the people in the armed forces. They show this with the flags, yellow ribbons, and other symbols of respect and hope.

However, the men and women of America need to realize that there is a better way to support the troops: donations to organizations with the goals of helping veterans get back on their feet after returning from active duty. The more funding these organizations receive the more people they can help.

The countdown to France's referendum on the EU constitution continues, and President Jacques Chirac's latest contribution to the debate has made a lasting impression, on one paper at least.

The climax of a trial in an American court forces the Russian papers to tackle the sensitive issue of cross-border adoption.

And in Spain, there is fresh hope that relations between Madrid and Washington are on the mend.

Chirac in 'pugnacious' form

France's Nouvel Observateur offers President Jacques Chirac plenty of praise for his performance on French television on Tuesday, when he used a prime-time interview to make his case for a 'yes' vote in the forthcoming referendum on the EU constitution.

After the "huge failure" of his previous TV appearance, the paper says, Mr Chirac had the chance to "make up lost ground".

And he succeeded. "Because he sounded convinced," it explains, the president "became convincing", even if "a touch too pugnacious".

But some questions remain unanswered. The paper argues that Mr Chirac's "mendacious side" surfaced towards the end of the interview.

"How," it asks, "can we believe his claim of having always been a convinced European, when he objected to the admission of Spain and Portugal into the EU?"

Adoption row

A US court on Wednesday sentenced an American woman, Irma Pavlis, to 12 years in prison for beating her adopted Russian son, Alexei, to death. The reaction to the case in the Russian press is one of anger.

"An orphan's life is worth not a cent!" exclaims the headline in Novyye Izvestia .

"Unfortunately," it reflects, "this is not an isolated case. According to information from the Russian prosecutor-general's office, 13 children adopted from Russia have been killed by foreigners over the last few years."

But the problems facing Russian children start at home, the paper adds.

"You cannot fail to notice their no less lamentable condition here in Russia," it says. "A programme announced by President Putin in 2002 to eradicate the phenomenon of homeless, abandoned children is yet to bear results."

"There are hundreds of cases of cruelty to adopted children who have left Russia with their new parents," observes Tribuna .

And yet, it says, "the number of children finding new homes overseas has exceeded the number of orphans taken in by Russian families".

"This," it concludes, "is not only a socioeconomic indicator, but one of morality."

Sovetskaya Rossiya went to press before the sentence was announced, but its view of the case is blunt and to-the-point.

"Damn you, America!" it seethes.

"Alexei, thrown into poverty in Russia, was used 'for spare parts' in the US," the paper complains.

Amigos again

In Spain, La Vanguardia is pleased with the reception accorded in Washington to Defence Minister Jose Bono by his opposite number, Donald Rumsfeld.

"Bearing in mind that a veteran like Rumsfeld never says anything for nothing," the paper notes, "we must take his statements literally."

And the statements in question, it argues, reveal that, "despite the obvious annoyance" caused by Spain withdrawing its troops from Iraq, by its "sale of strategic equipment" to Venezuela, and by the "greater understanding" shown by Madrid towards Cuban leader Fidel Castro's regime, "the United States continues to regard Spain as a vital strategic ally".

Nowhere does this ring more true, the paper adds, than with Spain's role in "Nato's Mediterranean flank, in North Africa and the Middle East".

It's a dog's life

Russia's Novyye Izvestia has news of the Moscow city government's latest initiative to clean up the city.

"After the homeless and the prostitutes," the paper reports, "the turn has now come for stray animals to be rounded up and removed from the centre of Moscow."

What has made animal-lovers in the Russian capital "sound the alarm", it adds, is that, in the run-up to Victory Day, dogs in particular "have been disappearing without trace".

"But," the paper says, "the city authorities promise that the hounds have only been removed temporarily, and will allegedly be returned after the celebrations."

The European press review is compiled by BBC Monitoring from internet editions of the main European newspapers and some early printed editions.

Former Army Capt. Jason Cordova receives a $110 monthly check from the government for a disability he blames on the anthrax vaccine.

That has not stopped the Army from calling him back to duty. He has papers ordering him to report next month to Fort Jackson, S.C., to participate in Operation Enduring Freedom - the war in Afghanistan.

The Army has rejected his appeals for a medical exemption - despite his submission of letters from doctors describing debilitating attacks in his groin area possibly caused by the anthrax vaccine. Cordova, 30, said he has no choice but to ask a federal judge later this week to let him stay home.

"This is about principle. I've been a solid officer my entire career, and for me to have to fight like this for someone to do the right thing is driving me crazy," Cordova said.

Cordova is a member of the Individual Ready Reserves, which before the Iraq war had not been called into service since 1990. Members were honorably discharged from the Army after finishing their active-duty tours, typically four to six years, but stayed in the IRR for the remainder of the eight-year commitment they made to the Army.

Cordova is listed in VA documents as being 10 percent disabled, but he has petitioned the VA to increase the percentage. The VA agreed that the condition developed while he was in the Army.

Maj. Elizabeth Robbins, an Army spokeswoman, said soldiers with various disabilities have deployed to Iraq and elsewhere. She said she could not speak specifically about Cordova's case because of privacy reasons, but that every case is closely reviewed on an individual basis.

"There's certainly a precedence of people who have a low level Veterans Administration disability rating returning to active duty and serving fully and honorably," Robbins said.

Since 1998, the Pentagon has given millions of anthrax vaccine shots in a six-shot series, and claims it is as safe as any other vaccine.

But soldiers have complained of symptoms ranging from joint pain to miscarriage that they blame on the vaccine. Hundreds of individuals have been kicked out of the military for refusing to take them.

Cordova said he received five anthrax shots from 1999 to 2000 while he was a communications officer with the 5th Special Forces Group at Fort Campbell, Ky. The first symptoms occurred a little less than a year later, but he did not report the problems to the VA until 2002, about a year after he left the Army, he said.

During the attacks that occur two to three times a week, he said his lymph nodes in his groin become enlarged and his testicles become swollen and tender for hours at a time. The spot on his waist where he received the anthrax shots becomes red and inflamed, he said.

Both civilian and military doctors have written letters recommending that Cordova not be given any more doses of the anthrax vaccine, according to paperwork provided by Cordova.

The paperwork showed that an infectious disease specialist from the Veterans Affairs said the anthrax vaccine could not be specifically blamed for all the symptoms, but the benefit of the doubt should be given to Cordova.

Cordova, who is a pharmaceutical sales representative in Mechanicsburg, 10 miles west of Harrisburg, said he is so angry with the government he has taken framed photos and certificates from his time in the Army off the walls.

He said his health problems would not only put himself in danger at war, it would also endanger others in his unit because they might have to protect him.

"As an officer that's exactly the opposite of what I'm supposed to do," Cordova said. "I'm supposed to prevent friendly casualties, not be the cause of them."

As of March 16, 4,067 Individual Ready Reserves members have been ordered to report for duty, and 2,229 have requested a delay or exemption, said Robbins, the Army spokeswoman. Approvals for delays or exemptions have been approved in 1,866 cases, 83 have been denied and 280 are pending, Robbins said.

"Requiring soldiers in the Individual Ready Reserve to return to active duty is a prudent use of America's resources," Robbins said. "We are a nation at war."

American use of DU is "A crime against humanity which may, in the eyes of historians, rank with the worst atrocities of all time." US Iraq Military Vets "are on DU death row, waiting to die."

"I'm horrified. The people out there - the Iraqis, the media and the troops - risk the most appalling ill health. And the radiation from depleted uranium can travel literally anywhere. It's going to destroy the lives of thousands of children, all over the world. We all know how far radiation can travel. Radiation from Chernobyl reached Wales and in Britain you sometimes get red dust from the Sahara on your car."

The speaker is not some alarmist doomsayer. He is Dr. Chris Busby, the British radiation expert, Fellow of the University of Liverpool in the Faculty of Medicine and UK representative on the European Committee on Radiation Risk, talking about the best-kept secret of this war: the fact that by illegally using hundreds of tons of depleted uranium (DU) against Iraq, Britain and America have gravely endangered not only the Iraqis but the whole world.

For these weapons have released deadly, carcinogenic and mutagenic, radioactive particles in such abundance that-whipped up by sandstorms and carried on trade winds - there is no corner of the globe they cannot penetrate-including Britain. For the wind has no boundaries and time is on their side: the radioactivity persists for over 4,500,000,000 years and can cause cancer, leukemia, brain damage, kidney failure, and extreme birth defects - killing millions of every age for centuries to come. A crime against humanity which may, in the eyes of historians, rank with the worst atrocities of all time.

These weapons have released deadly, carcinogenic and mutagenic, radioactive particles in such abundance that there is no corner of the globe they cannot penetrate - including Britain. Yet, officially, no crime has been committed. For this story is a dirty story in which the facts have been concealed from those who needed them most. It is also a story we need to know if the people of Iraq are to get the medical care they desperately need, and if our troops, returning from Iraq, are not to suffer as terribly as the veterans of other conflicts in which depleted uranium was used.

A Dirty Tyson

'Depleted' uranium is in many ways a misnomer. 'Depleted' sounds weak. The only weak thing about depleted uranium is its price. It is dirt cheap, toxic, waste from nuclear power plants and bomb production. However, uranium is one of earth's heaviest elements and DU packs a Tyson's punch, smashing through tanks, buildings and bunkers with equal ease, spontaneously catching fire as it does so, and burning people alive. 'Crispy critters' is what US servicemen call those unfortunate enough to be close. And, when John Pilger encountered children killed at a greater distance he wrote: "The children's skin had folded back, like parchment, revealing veins and burnt flesh that seeped blood, while the eyes, intact, stared straight ahead. I vomited." (Daily Mirror)

The millions of radioactive uranium oxide particles released when it burns can kill just as surely, but far more terribly. They can even be so tiny they pass through a gas mask, making protection against them impossible. Yet, small is not beautiful. For these invisible killers indiscriminately attack men, women, children and even babies in the womb-and do the gravest harm of all to children and unborn babies.

A Terrible Legacy

Doctors in Iraq have estimated that birth defects have increased by 2-6 times, and 3-12 times as many children have developed cancer and leukemia since 1991. Moreover, a report published in The Lancet in 1998 said that as many as 500 children a day are dying from these sequels to war and sanctions and that the death rate for Iraqi children under 5 years of age increased from 23 per 1000 in 1989 to 166 per thousand in 1993. Overall, cases of lymphoblastic leukemia more than quadrupled with other cancers also increasing 'at an alarming rate.' In men, lung, bladder, bronchus, skin, and stomach cancers showed the highest increase. In women, the highest increases were in breast and bladder cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.[1]

On hearing that DU had been used in the Gulf in 1991, the UK Atomic Energy Authority sent the Ministry of Defense a special report on the potential damage to health and the environment. It said that it could cause half a million additional cancer deaths in Iraq over 10 years. In that war the authorities only admitted to using 320 tons of DU-although the Dutch charity LAKA estimates the true figure is closer to 800 tons. Many times that may have been spread across Iraq by this year's war. The devastating damage all this DU will do to the health and fertility of the people of Iraq now, and for generations to come, is beyond imagining.

The radioactivity persists for over 4,500,000,000 years killing millions of every age for centuries to come. This is a crime against humanity which may rank with the worst atrocities of all time.

We must also count the numberless thousands of miscarried babies. Nobody knows how many Iraqis have died in the womb since DU contaminated their world. But it is suggested that troops who were only exposed to DU for the brief period of the war were still excreting uranium in their semen 8 years later and some had 100 times the so-called 'safe limit' of uranium in their urine. The lack of government interest in the plight of veterans of the 1991 war is reflected in a lack of academic research on the impact of DU but informal research has found a high incidence of birth defects in their children and that the wives of men who served in Iraq have three times more miscarriages than the wives of servicemen who did not go there.

Since DU darkened the land Iraq has seen birth defects which would break a heart of stone: babies with terribly foreshortened limbs, with their intestines outside their bodies, with huge bulging tumors where their eyes should be, or with a single eye-like Cyclops, or without eyes, or without limbs, and even without heads. Significantly, some of the defects are almost unknown outside textbooks showing the babies born near A-bomb test sites in the Pacific.

Doctors report that many women no longer say 'Is it a girl or a boy?' but simply, 'Is it normal, doctor?' Moreover this terrible legacy will not end. The genes of their parents may have been damaged for ever, and the damaging DU dust is ever-present.

Blue on Blue

What the governments of America and Britain have done to the people of Iraq they have also done to their own soldiers, in both wars. And they have done it knowingly. For the battlefields have been thick with DU and soldiers have had to enter areas heavily contaminated by bombing. Moreover, their bodies have not only been assaulted by DU but also by a vaccination regime which violated normal protocols, experimental vaccines, nerve agent pills, and organophosphate pesticides in their tents. And yet, though the hazards of DU were known, British and American troops were not warned of its dangers. Nor were they given thorough medical checks on their return-even though identifying it quickly might have made it possible to remove some of it from their body. Then, when a growing number became seriously ill, and should have been sent to top experts in radiation damage and neurotoxins, many were sent to a psychiatrist.

Over 200,000 US troops who returned from the 1991 war are now invalided out with ailments officially attributed to service in Iraq-that's 1 in 3. In contrast, the British government's failure to fully assess the health of returning troops, or to monitor their health, means no one even knows how many have died or become gravely ill since their return. However, Gulf veterans' associations say that, of 40,000 or so fighting fit men and women who saw active service, at least 572 have died prematurely since coming home and 5000 may be ill. An alarming number are thought to have taken their own lives, unable to bear the torment of the innumerable ailments which have combined to take away their career, their sexuality, their ability to have normal children, and even their ability to breathe or walk normally. As one veteran puts it, they are 'on DU death row, waiting to die.'

Whatever other factors there may be, some of their illnesses are strikingly similar to those of Iraqis exposed to DU dust. For example, soldiers have also fathered children without eyes. And, in a group of eight servicemen whose babies lack eyes seven are known to have been directly exposed to DU dust.

They too have fathered children with stunted arms, and rare abnormalities classically associated with radiation damage. They too seem prone to cancer and leukemia. Tellingly, so are EU soldiers who served as peacekeepers in the Balkans, where DU was also used. Indeed their leukemia rate has been so high that several EU governments have protested at the use of DU.

The Vital Evidence

Despite all that evidence of the harm done by DU, governments on both sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly claimed that as it emits only 'low level' radiation DU is harmless. Award-winning scientist, Dr. Rosalie Bertell who has led UN medical commissions, has studied 'low-level' radiation for 30 years. 2 She has found that uranium oxide particles have more than enough power to harm cells, and describes their pulses of radiation as hitting surrounding cells 'like flashes of lightning' again and again in a single second.[2] Like many scientists worldwide who have studied this type of radiation, she has found that such 'lightning strikes' can damage DNA and cause cell mutations which lead to cancer.

Moreover, these particles can be taken up by body fluids and travel through the body, damaging more than one organ. To compound all that, Dr. Bertell has found that this particular type of radiation can cause the body's communication systems to break down, leading to malfunctions in many vital organs of the body and to many medical problems. A striking fact, since many veterans of the first Gulf war suffer from innumerable, seemingly unrelated, ailments.

In addition, recent research by Eric Wright, Professor of Experimental Haematology at Dundee University, and others, have shown two ways in which such radiation can do far more damage than has been thought. The first is that a cell which seems unharmed by radiation can produce cells with diverse mutations several cell generations later. (And mutations are at the root of cancer and birth defects.) This 'radiation-induced genomic instability' is compounded by 'the bystander effect' by which cells mutate in unison with others which have been damaged by radiation-rather as birds swoop and turn in unison. Put together, these two mechanisms can greatly increase the damage done by a single source of radiation, such as a DU particle. Moreover, it is now clear that there are marked genetic differences in the way individuals respond to radiation-with some being far more likely to develop cancer than others. So the fact that some veterans of the first Gulf war seem relatively unharmed by their exposure to DU in no way proves that DU did not damage others.

The Price of Truth

That the evidence from Iraq and from our troops, and the research findings of such experts, have been ignored may be no accident. A US report, leaked in late 1995, allegedly says, 'The potential for health effects from DU exposure is real; however it must be viewed in perspective... the financial implications of long-term disability payments and healthcare costs would be excessive.'[3]

Clearly, with hundreds of thousands gravely ill in Iraq and at least a quarter of a million UK and US troops seriously ill, huge disability claims might be made not only against the governments of Britain and America if the harm done by DU were acknowledged. There might also be huge claims against companies making DU weapons and some of their directors are said to be extremely close to the White House. How close they are to Downing Street is a matter for speculation, but arms sales makes a considerable contribution to British trade. So the massive whitewashing of DU over the past 12 years, and the way that governments have failed to test returning troops, seemed to disbelieve them, and washed their hands of them, may be purely to save money.

The possibility that financial considerations have led the governments of Britain and America to cynically avoid taking responsibility for the harm they have done not only to the people of Iraq but to their own troops may seem outlandish. Yet DU weapons weren't used by the other side and no other explanation fits the evidence. For, in the days before Britain and America first used DU in war its hazards were no secret.[4] One American study in 1990 said DU was 'linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and to] chemical toxicity-causing kidney damage'. While another openly warned that exposure to these particles under battlefield conditions could lead to cancers of the lung and bone, kidney damage, non-malignant lung disease, neuro-cognitive disorders, chromosomal damage and birth defects.[5]

A Culture of Denial

In 1996 and 1997 UN Human Rights Tribunals condemned DU weapons for illegally breaking the Geneva Convention and classed them as 'weapons of mass destruction' 'incompatible with international humanitarian and human rights law.' Since then, following leukemia in European peacekeeping troops in the Balkans and Afghanistan (where DU was also used), the EU has twice called for DU weapons to be banned.

Yet, far from banning DU, America and Britain stepped up their denials of the harm from this radioactive dust as more and more troops from the first Gulf war and from action and peacekeeping in the Balkans and Afghanistan have become seriously ill. This is no coincidence. In 1997, while citing experiments, by others, in which 84 percent of dogs exposed to inhaled uranium died of cancer of the lungs, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, then Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University in Washington was quoted as saying, 'The [US government's] Veterans Administration asked me to lie about the risks of incorporating depleted uranium in the human body.' He concluded, 'uranium does cause cancer, uranium does cause mutation, and uranium does kill. If we continue with the irresponsible contamination of the biosphere, and denial of the fact that human life is endangered by the deadly isotope uranium, then we are doing disservice to ourselves, disservice to the truth, disservice to God and to all generations who follow.' Not what the authorities wanted to hear and his research was suddenly blocked.

During 12 years of ever-growing British whitewash the authorities have abolished military hospitals, where there could have been specialized research on the effects of DU and where expertise in treating DU victims could have built up. And, not content with the insult of suggesting the gravely disabling symptoms of Gulf veterans are imaginary they have refused full pensions to many. For, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the current House of Commons briefing paper on DU hazards says 'it is judged that any radiation effects from possible exposures are extremely unlikely to be a contributory factor to the illnesses currently being experienced by some Gulf war veterans.' Note how over a quarter of a million sick and dying US and UK vets are called 'some.'

The Way Ahead

Britain and America not only used DU in this year's Iraq war, they dramatically increased its use-from a minimum of 320 tons in the previous war to at minimum of 1500 tons in this one. And this time the use of DU wasn't limited to anti-tank weapons-as it had largely been in the previous Gulf war-but was extended to the guided missiles, large bunker busters and big 2000-pound bombs used in Iraq's cities. This means that Iraq's cities have been blanketed in lethal particles-any one of which can cause cancer or deform a child. In addition, the use of DU in huge bombs which throw the deadly particles higher and wider in huge plumes of smoke means that billions of deadly particles have been carried high into the air-again and again and again as the bombs rained down-ready to be swept worldwide by the winds.

The Royal Society has suggested the solution is massive decontamination in Iraq. That could only scratch the surface. For decontamination is hugely expensive and, though it may reduce the risks in some of the worst areas, it cannot fully remove them. For DU is too widespread on land and water. How do you clean up every nook and cranny of a city the size of Baghdad? How can they decontaminate a whole country in which microscopic particles, which cannot be detected with a normal geiger counter, are spread from border to border? And how can they clean up all the countries downwind of Iraq-and, indeed, the world?

So there are only two things we can do to mitigate this crime against humanity. The first is to provide the best possible medical care for the people of Iraq, for our returning troops and for those who served in the last Gulf war and, through that, minimize their suffering. The second is to relegate war, and the production and sale of weapons, to the scrap heap of history-along with slavery and genocide. Then, and only then, will this crime against humanity be expunged, and the tragic deaths from this war truly bring freedom to the people of Iraq, and of the world.

References

[1] The Lancet volume 351, issue 9103, 28 February 1998.

[2] Rosalie Bertell's book Planet Earth the Latest Weapon of War was reviewed in Caduceus issue 51, page 28.

[3] TAB L_Research Report Summaries

[4] The secret official memorandum to Brigadier General L.R. Groves from Drs Conant, Compton and Urey of War Department Manhattan district dated October 1943 is available at the website.

[5] TAB L_Research Report Summaries

Further Information

The Low Level Radiation Campaign hopes to be able to arrange a limited number of private urine tests for those returning from the latest Gulf war. It can be contacted at: The Knoll, Montpelier Park, Llandrindod Wells, LD1 5LW. 01597 824771. Web: LLRC.org. By James DenverMay 13, 2005, 06:57James Denver writes and broadcasts internationally on science and technology.

A WEEK OF AWARENESS OF PALESTINIAN DISPLACEMENT AND EVICTION AND REFUGEES' RIGHT OF RETURN

On 15 May, Palestinians commemorate their forced displacement and dispossession resulting from the establishment of the state of Israel. Commemorations of this year's 57th anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe) aim to draw attention to the need to halt Israel's ongoing expropriation of Palestinian land and the necessity to recognize and implement Palestinian refugees' right to return to their homes and properties in accordance with international law and UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

In Palestine, this year's memorial is coordinated by the Committee for the Commemoration of the 57th Anniversary of the Nakba, a body composed of representatives of Palestinian refugee community organizations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, members of the global Palestine Right of Return Coalition, as well as Palestinian unions, political groups, national institutions, NGOs and the PLO Department for Refugee Affairs. Until mid-May, numerous events will be organized by local organizations in West Bank and Gaza Strip to be followed by a national memorial ceremony in Ramallah on 15 May.

The annual Return March of internally displaced Palestinians in Israel will be held on Israel 's Independence Day, 12 May. Jewish-Israeli initiatives, among them Zochrot, who have taken on the difficult task of bringing the Palestinian Nakba to the attention of the Israeli public will join the march of internally displaced Palestinians to the 1948 depopulated villages of Hawsha an dal-Kasayer (Haifa).

In Lebanon, the public is invited to a photo exhibition, "Memory of the Nakba-Memory of Exile" ,organized by the Aidun Group (Palestine Right of Return Coalition) and the Palestinian Cultural Club of the Beirut Arab University. The exhibition held under the patronage of former Prime Minister Dr. Salim Al Hoss and supported by the Norwegian People's Aid will be open for the public between 13-16 May at the Ministry of Tourism, Hamra, Beirut.

In Canada , the Association of Palestinian Arab Canadians will hold an information session about the Palestinian Nakba at Carleton University (Bell Theater), Ottawa , in the evening of 14 May. The event will include a lecture and discussion with Dr. Isamil Zayid and a screening of the film " Palestine is Still the Issue", by John Pilger.

Zochrot Nakba Learning Center, Tel Aviv: A series of events aimed at 'discussing what is excluded from Israeli national memory' and raising awareness of the human cost and consequences of the Palestinian Nakba among Jewish-Israeli society will be organized from 10-17 May by Zochrot in conjunction with Beit Nashim Feministi, al-Rabita Jaffa, filmmakers and Palestinian eyewitnesses of the events in 1948.

BADIL: A special Nakba memorial issue of BADIL's Arabic languagae magazine Haq al-Awda (The Right of Return) will be released on 14 May and distributed as a supplement to local press in Palestine. Electronic copies will be published on the BADIL website.

There was a seaside temple in India that was struck by lightening. That minor storm was the vanguard to a full hurricane that eventually ravaged the entire countryside. The old temple was split from its roof line to its foundations. One entire end of the building was parted from its body like a severed head. Was this karma? Was this the punishment of the gods? Or was it simply an old building or an unfortunate accident?

What you say shows your attitude about nature, reality, and whether you believe gods intervene in human affairs. If you insist that there was some reason that lightening cleaved the temple, then you live in a world where uncertainly is the byproduct of some supreme being’s emotional whims. If, however, you accept this incident solely as a natural disaster, then you also accept random occurrences in life. Such a viewpoint does not preclude any notion of the divine, of course. It merely states that not everything in nature is administered by some heavenly bureaucracy.

It is a simple fact that lightening split the temple. The meaning of this incident — if there is any — is determined by each person. One person regards it as a disaster, another as a good thing, while a third views it dispassionately. There is nothing inherent in the incident that dictates its meaning. It is enough that we all recognize that it happened.meaning365 TaoDaily MeditationsDeng Ming-DaoISBN: 0-06-250223-9

GrasslandAi Zhongxin 1984Oil on canvas 30" x 43"

Ai Zhongxin graduated in 1940 from the Department of Art of the former Central University and is now a professor at the Central Academy of Art.

From the earliest times the steppe nomads lived in tented encampments which, although never permanent, sometimes grew to great size. The settlement in the background of "Grassland" is a modern version of those encampments. Visible at the far left are two circular Mongolian tents erected outside the main grouping. Flags, signifying the tribal affiliations of the group, would normally be flying from the masts, but those shown here are lowered in anticipation of the coming storm.

Thursday

SAN DIEGO – A military judge ordered a Navy sailor on Thursday to complete three months of hard labor for refusing to deploy with his ship in protest of the war in Iraq, but he declined prosecutors' requests for time in custody.

Lt. Cmdr. Bob Klant also reduced Pablo Paredes' rank from petty officer third class to seaman recruit, the lowest in the Navy.

Klant's sentencing came a day after he found Paredes guilty of one count of missing his ship's movement when he refused to board the USS Bonhomme Richard as it deployed to the Persian Gulf in December.

Paredes, a 23-year-old from the New York City borough of the Bronx, said he refused to support a war he believes is illegal and immoral. He has since become an outspoken anti-war activist. Before the sentence was imposed, he read an impassioned statement of his beliefs.

"If there is anything I could be guilty of, it is my beliefs," he said. "I am guilty of believing the war is illegal. I am guilty of believing war in all forms is immoral and useless, and I am guilty of believing that as a service member I have a duty to refuse to participate in this war because it is illegal."

Prosecutors had asked Klant to sentence Paredes to nine months in confinement, three months less than the possible maximum, and a bad conduct discharge.

"He is trying to infect the military with his own philosophy of disobedience," prosecutor Lt. Brandon Hale said. "Sailors all over the world will want to know whether this will be tolerated. Sailors want to know whether doing what he did is a good way to get out of deployment."

Prosecutors left the courtroom without making any statements, but Sam Samuelson, a Navy spokesman, said Paredes' guilty verdict sent a message.

"His actions were in conflict with his duty and taxpayers' obligations that the Navy maintain good order and discipline," Samuelson said.

The sentence of hard labor normally involves extra duty. For two of the three months, Paredes also will be restricted to his naval base.

"This is an affirmation of every sailor's and military person's right to speak out and follow their conscience," he said.

The Bonhomme Richard and two other ships carried about 3,000 Iraq-bound Marines when they set off Dec. 6 on a six-month deployment to the Pacific and Indian oceans.

Warren said 10 other servicemen weren't present when the ship set sail, but he did not know what punishment, if any, they received and maintained Paredes was singled out for his political beliefs.

Paredes arrived at the Navy pier that day wearing a T-shirt that read "Like a Cabinet Member, I Resign" and handed over his military ID card, telling a military police officer "I quit." Paredes has alerted the media to his plans and a crowd of TV cameras was waiting for him.

The judge seemed troubled by Paredes' conduct – wearing a "silly T-shirt" with an incoherent message and staging a news conference that upset sailors and Marines who were saying goodbye to their families.

Klant said Paredes' actions seemed out of character for the former Catholic altar boy who consistently received positive evaluations from his superiors in Navy. Rather, they resembled the sort of "tantrum" the judge said he saw too often in his court from disobedient sailors.

Paredes requested conscientious objector status after he refused to board the ship. A Navy officer who reviewed his case found that his refusal was based on political opposition to the Iraq war, not a moral opposition to all war and recommended it be denied. The application is awaiting a final decision from Paredes' chain of command.

Paredes waived his right to have his case heard by a military jury.

Convicted sailor faces brig for act of protest

Petty officer refused to board ship for Iraq

By Rick RogersUNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

May 12, 2005

A San Diego sailor who refused to go to war in Iraq now could face a year in the brig after being convicted of one of two charges against him yesterday.

It was standing-room-only in a courtroom at 32nd Street Naval Station during opening day of the court-martial of Petty Officer 3rd Class Pablo Paredes, who chose possible jail time over supporting a war he says is illegal.

On Dec. 6, Paredes refused to board the amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard when it sailed with thousands of Marines and sailors to the Persian Gulf.

The Navy charged Paredes, a Bronx, N.Y., native, with missing the ship's movement and with unauthorized absence. His defense team said about 10 other sailors also missed their deployment that day.

Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant, the presiding judge, heard testimony yesterday after Paredes requested trial by judge alone and then pleaded not guilty. He could have opted to be tried by fellow service members, some of them enlisted like himself.

Klant dismissed the unauthorized absence charge, the lesser of the two charges, but found him guilty of missing movement.

"I'm happy about getting the charge knocked off," Paredes said at the end of yesterday's proceedings. "But I'll have to wait until tomorrow to see what it means."

Lead prosecutor Lt. Brandon Hale argued that Paredes, in trying to gain maximum public attention, orchestrated his refusal to deploy by calling media and appearing pierside as his ship sailed.

Hale said the Navy made every effort short of physically forcing Paredes to board the Bonhomme Richard.

Most courtroom spectators had strong opinions about the defendant.

A three-man contingent from Iraq Veterans Against the War was on hand, as were several other anti-war activists.

"We have all been to Iraq, and we support anyone who stands in nonviolent opposition," said Tim Goodrich, who said the group he co-founded has about 150 members across the country.

"People in the military know this war is an illegal war," said group member Camilo Mejia, 29, an Army staff sergeant who spent nine months in the brig at Fort Sill, Okla., after refusing to return to Iraq after a military leave.

Others, like many officers and crew members of the Bonhomme Richard, had little good to say about Paredes.

"I felt our families were out there (on the pier), and he was making a big joke," said Petty Officer 2nd Class Lietrice Williams.

A few sailors wanted to "take matters into their own hands, to go down and physically" confront Paredes, said Chief Petty Officer Michael Lavassaur.

During the court-martial, Lt. Christopher Castleman testified that he met Paredes at the pier and warned him that if he failed to board the Bonhomme Richard, he could face criminal charges.

Defense attorney Jeremy Warren countered that Castleman also told Paredes that if he didn't board the ship he was "free to go," leaving the sailor with no clear idea what to do.

Paredes requested conscientious objector status after he declined to board the vessel. A Navy officer found that Paredes' refusal was based on political opposition to the Iraq war, not a moral opposition to all war, and recommended that it be denied.

In the days before the court-martial, Paredes seemed unfazed by the prospect of a conviction following the military equivalent of a civilian misdemeanor trial.

"The president of the United States has a DUI under his belt," Paredes said, referring to President Bush's 1976 drunken driving arrest in Maine and subsequent guilty plea. "I think I'll make it with a misdemeanor."

Ain’t But One Way Out

Naomi Klein’s “Courage”

By MICHAEL NEUMANN

aomi Klein, in a recent article posted on In These Times, tells us "How to end the war". She says we need to know the reasons for it, that these are exposed by the US' pursuit of military bases and Iraqi oil wealth. She says that we should struggle for what the Iraqis themselves want, meaningful self-determination and real democracy, buttressed by respect of international law. Her essay pretty well collects in one place everything that is wrong with so much left-wing thinking right now.

What's wrong?

First, to end the war, we do not need to know the real reasons for it. That's historical research, not political planning. It's like saying that, for the allies to win World War II, they needed to know Hitler's real reasons for making it. These reasons are still debated--A.J.P.Taylor introduced major competition to the naked aggression thesis--yet the war is long won. This is not nit-picking; it exemplifies the left's obsession with pointless, endless, fruitless analysis.

Second, Klein's claims about what counts as evidence for what are feeble. Of course, when one country invades another on a shoestring budget--and the whole point of Rumsfeld's policies was to make war on the cheap--then its first priorities will be to:

(1) make the place safe for your own forces, so that the political and economic cost of the war doesn't spiral out of control, and

(2) use the country's assets--in this case oil--to pay your way. So the invasion's activities were dictated by the invasion's budget, and are no indication of any ultimate objectives.(*) As for making the place safe for foreign investment, that is a third, more long-term priority along the same lines: get the private sector to do the reconstruction, which would otherwise cost far more than the US could ever afford. This is classic creepy-Republican wishful thinking and again has nothing to do with any ultimate objectives.

Third, Klein makes much of the insincerity of US democracy-rhetoric about Iraq. Well, duh. What has this to do with anything? Everyone but some few Americans know this, and those few Americans are either too steeped in their prejudices to be moved, or don't really give a damn whether the US is out to make Iraq into a democracy. They are far more concerned about kicking terrorist butt and generally showing the world that America is boss. Their motives are pure 9-11 reaction.

Fourth, Klein tells us we should have the courage to be serious, and then recommends what might as well be frivolity. She tells us that "the core fight is over respect for international law". Nope, international law is a non-starter, because there is no overriding, neutral sovereign to enforce it. What Klein is asking us to respect is in reality no more than a bunch of sentences expressing good wishes, articulated by courts and lawyers without the slightest authority because, in the real world, authority rests on naked power. No, the core fight is to get the US out of Iraq, isn't it? Which would be preferable: the US leaving Iraq tomorrow, and remaining completely contemptuous of international law, or leaving in five years, imbued with the deepest respect for international law? Klein's priorities are just a case of political ADD.

Fifth, Klein's position is drawn and quartered by the tug-of-war between her wish to avoid Bush's nation-building and her embrace of that very doctrine. First she says: "The future of the anti-war movement requires that it become a pro-democracy movement. Our marching orders have been given to us by the people of Iraq... We need to take our direction from them."

Then she says: "We need to support the people of Iraq and their clear demands for an end to both military and corporate occupation. ...It doesn't mean blindly cheerleading for "the resistance." Because there isn't just one resistance in Iraq... Not everyone fighting the U.S. occupation is fighting for the freedom of all Iraqis; some are fighting for their own elite power. That's why we need to stay focused on supporting the demands for self-determination, not cheering any setback for U.S. empire."

Then she says: "Anybody who says Iraqis don't want democracy should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Iraqis are clamoring for democracy and had risked their lives for it long before this invasion-in the 1991 uprising against Saddam, for example, when they were left to be slaughtered. The elections in January took place only because of tremendous pressure from Iraqi Shia communities that insisted on getting the freedom they were promised."

It's confusing, but I get it: getting the US out of Iraq is not really our first priority. It's getting the US out of Iraq *on our terms*. Who's 'we'? Well, 'we' support democracy, which means supporting, not all Iraqis, but the Iraqis who support democracy. The other Iraqis are bad: they just want to support 'their own [now conspicuously absent] élite power.' Worse, "Some elements of the armed resistance are targeting Iraqi civilians as they pray in Shia mosques-barbaric acts that serve the interests of the Bush administration by feeding the perception that the country is on the brink of civil war and therefore U.S. forces must remain in Iraq." So we support the people who want democracy, and who don't attack the Shia. We support the people who really want democracy, namely the nice Shia (not any nasty ones who want a theocracy) and, though she does not mention them, the Kurds. In other words, we support exactly the elements of the population Bush supports, and whatever other nice people we can find. It's all very well for Klein to talk of a 'responsible agenda' for withdrawal and even reparations, but if she's really committed to democracy in Iraq, she is committed to large parts of the US government's current policies.

This is pure bone-headed American ideology all over again. Of course the Shia communities wanted elections--wouldn't you, if that was your gateway to power? Sure they revolted in 1991--we are told they wanted Saddam Hussein off their backs, and thought they saw their chance. None of this shows that Iraqis have the American left's infantile commitment to a system of government which, in America itself, has been a miserable failure. Democracy, if it works anywhere, seems to work best in very settled, very prosperous countries--like those of Western Europe, at least before it got riled up about its immigrants. Iraq is no such place.

There's more. If Klein were not as arrogant as Bush, she would be the first to stress that she knows nothing about Iraq or what the Iraqis want, rather than trumpeting her great certainty on that subject. She would not produce embarrassing nonsense like "Now Iraqis are struggling for the tools that will make self-determination meaningful...". For one thing, 'self-determination' is comical: do the Iraqi Kurds want it in the same sense that the other Iraqis do? It is like the joke (yes, joke) that Kant reports: Two kings, Francis I of France and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, both want Milan. Francis proclaims a harmonious convergence of interest: "what my brother Charles wants, I want too." For another thing, in our ignorance of Iraq, shouldn't we tend to go with the obvious? Savage resistance to an invasion is usually taken to mean that the resisters want the invaders out of there. It is usually taken, not as a struggle to make self-determination meaningful, but as a struggle for self-determination.

Quite possibly Iraqis do want what Klein apparently considers the prerequisites of meaningfulness: "freedom from debt for Iraq, a total abandonment of Bremer's illegal economic laws, full Iraqi control over the reconstruction budget". Quite possibly they want many other things. But haven't quite a few Iraqis been telling and showing us that, first and foremost, they want the Americans out, period, not only if the departure is meaningful? Doesn't their first priority seem to be, not some search for meaning, but the killing of America's soldiers and lackeys? Is there something unclear about this message, or something I missed? Have the Iraqis expressed passionate longings for the American left to pick and choose among the factions in their country?

Throughout, Klein lacks precisely what she says we should have: the courage to be serious. What sort of courage does it take to demonstrate for True Democracy? Klein has not even asked the hard question. If she wants democracy so much--because, just like Bush and Blair, she absolutely knows those pitiful little Iraqis are pining for democracy--just when and how should the US withdraw its troops? Presumably the answer must be: once they have made Iraq safe for democracy. This would mean withdrawing once the 'democratic Iraqis' are strong enough to prevail over the undemocratic Iraqis, who seem to be quite powerful and well-organized. This would certainly require US military assistance, perhaps for years, or the introduction of other military forces to do the same thing, e.g. getting the UN or NATO to spell off the American invaders. (If Klein thinks that, somewhere in the universe, there are decorous, respectful, virtually nonviolent troops ready to somehow neutralize Klein's and Bush's 'bad guys'; this is another fantasy.) So Klein's courage consists in asking for pretty much what Bush is giving her.

Yes, Klein is sincere, she wants real democracy, she supports the truly democratic elements, and Bush is insincere. But in the end it is a difference that makes no difference. If you insist on bringing democracy to Iraq--always protesting that this is what the Iraqis themselves want--you will have to beat the anti-democratic elements you both deplore, and this will mean US bases and American soldiers shedding Iraqi blood. Any sincerity infusing these policies, and their ultimate objectives, is so much posturing over the same vicious meddling.

Getting Serious

The courage to be serious would mean something quite different. It would mean, not this bloodless, venti-decaf-latte substitute for passion, but real hatred of America's actions and single-minded, furious determination to get every last 'coalition' soldier off Iraqi soil, as soon as possible, by any means necessary. No ifs ands or buts about democracy, just get them out. Anyone who really believed in the Iraqis' right to their own damn country would not be fussing about whether their projected form of government or mode of self-determination matched American leftist ideals. This in none of our business, not least because it is mere insolence to presume that we know what the Iraqis want or how they should get it. It takes years to know a country, and, if one doesn't live there, at least long study, bolstered by fluency in the country's language. Only American yahoos, of all political stripes, would think otherwise.

"How to end the war?" Neither I nor Klein know how, but trying involves real, angry, nasty opposition, something a government might be concerned about. It cannot be built on a demand for withdrawal hedged with cherrypicking among which Iraqis 'give us our marching orders'. Real opposition requires something beyond reasoned persuasion; the utter impotence of the utterly reasonable left has shown as much. It is not a matter of discovering what documents which neocon produced in 1990. It is not a matter of billions and billions of emails, insulating us from the world like so much pink fiberglass. It is not a matter of blandly 'building constituencies', but of using the constituency that we already have, that we are. It is a couse of action which demonstrates that this war disgusts us, that we will stop at nothing to end it, and that we couldn't care less if it tears our country apart. The US should just leave, now, and we should all just shut up about democracy in Iraq. Decisions about policing belong to Iraqis and perhaps international agencies, whether or not these agencies have the slightest commitment to a democracy, and not to Americans of any political stripe. That's a clear message on which clear, resolute, all-out opposition can be built.

The courage to be serious also means not 'supporting our troops'. This support really has become obnoxious. We have just been treated to dozens of Vietnam commemorative pieces. The best of them make some mention of the three million Vietnamese we killed, and perhaps the Vietnamese children who, thanks to Agent Orange, must live some sort of life in hideous deformity. But on the left as on the right, it is all too common for the piece to be built around some loveable Vietnam vet. A recent Nation article, for instance, we meet

"Mike Sulsona, a former Marine... just back from his first trip to Vietnam since the war. He was excited because he surprised himself by liking it there this time and because he was pleased with the research he did for a play he wants to write about an Army tank driver."

We learn that

'Back in Ho Chi Minh City, the old Saigon, Sulsona was rolling his chair down a crowded sidewalk before his return to New York. He almost collided with a Vietnamese man, also in a wheelchair, rolling in the opposite direction, trying to sell lottery tickets. Recognizing each other by their differentness from everyone else and similarity to each other, the two paraplegics stopped rolling. The Vietnam veteran and the Vietnamese veteran wheeled their chairs to face each other as they might once have done with weapons.

'Neither knew many words in the other's language, but they spoke briefly, haltingly, enough for Sulsona to determine the other man had also been in the war. "Suddenly, we began laughing," Sulsona said. "Heavy belly laughs. I have no idea if he was in the South Vietnamese Army fighting for our side, or in the Viet Cong, or had come down with the North Vietnamese Army... Does it make a difference? We were laughing and laughing and couldn't stop, couldn't help ourselves, just a couple of guys who got fucked up in the war. ...Neither of us could stop laughing. I mean, what was all that about, anyway?"'

Heck, that sure is a nice send-off for bathing a country in fire and poison: let's pause and reflect on how gosh-darn crazy war is. It's exactly the slimy, war-is-hell-and-we're-just-human cop-out that endears so many to the Korean-war wackiness of M*A*S*H, which first aired three years before the fall of Saigon.

This is not compassion; it is cowardice. Unless you are a third force, with decisive power to affect the world situation, in a war you must take one side or the other. The left is no such third force. We are for the American invasion of Iraq, and the troops that effect it, or we are against it. To be serious is to acknowledge that one can't always pick and choose. We could not have seriously said, "we support the war against Hitler, but oppose Stalin", because that, taken seriously, would have been silly. Are you going to fight Stalin? Then you help Hitler. Are you not going to fight Stalin? Then who gives a damn what you 'oppose'?

If we support the troops, that means we don't want them to be killed, and we support their efforts to protect themselves, at least until such time--months, years?--as they can withdraw. In other words, we are against the Iraqis who attack them. We are for the deaths of the attackers, and anyone else who gets caught in crossfire as American troops fight back. If not, how is our support 'meaningful'?

We make patronizing excuses for 'our' soldiers: they are poor, ignorant, oppressed, deceived by recruiters, they are canon-fodder, they are everything that has formed the backbone of evil armies since the dawn of history. They are everything, that is, but adults, responsible for their decisions. As a consequence of these decisions, they have come thousands of miles to kill and mutilate people who did them no harm. If we--to use Klein's idiom--'meaningfully' support 'our' troops, we 'meaningfully' support the rape of Iraq, however much we bleat about the right and proper, partisan and time-consuming way to bring the boys home. The courage to be serious means the courage to make hard choices. Do we have it?

* * *

(*) Yes, some of the bases look permanent. Sure, the US government would like to have them forever, who wouldn't? Countries like to be powerful, and seize on the opportunity to extend their power. But it is quite a stretch to suppose that the US invaded Iraq for these bases when, at far less cost of every kind, they could have built them elsewhere in the region.

Michael Neumann is a professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada. Professor Neumann's views are not to be taken as those of his university. His book What's Left: Radical Politics and the Radical Psyche has just been republished by Broadview Press. He contributed the essay, "What is Anti-Semitism", to CounterPunch's book, The Politics of Anti-Semitism. In September 2005, CounterPunch/AK Press will publish Neumann's new book, The Case Against Israel. He can be reached at: mneumann@trentu.ca.

Put the war on trial

TWO MEN are being put on trial by the military this week because they answered their consciences.

Pablo Paredes and Kevin Benderman refused to accept the lies they were told about the U.S. war on Iraq. Refused to accept the racist dehumanization of the Iraqi people. Refused to participate in the violence of the most lethal military machine in the history of the world. Refused to go to war for oil and empire in Iraq.

Paredes, a third class petty officer, refused to board his Navy ship bound for the Persian Gulf, bringing 3,000 Marines to the battlefield — to kill and be killed. Benderman, an Army sergeant, applied for conscientious objector status before his unit deployed to Iraq for a second tour of duty.

Now, the military wants to punish them for it — to silence their voices before the spirit of resistance reaches more soldiers. Pablo and Kevin will appear at separate court-martial trials this week, where they will face prison time — up to one year for Pablo, and as many as seven years for Kevin.

But both men say they are prepared to go to jail rather than participate in an unjust war — one that causes the kind of atrocities Kevin described in an interview with Socialist Worker. He talked about the haunting memory of a young girl standing alongside the road, whose “arm was burned all the way up her shoulder, and I don’t mean just a little blistered...She had third degree burns the entire length of her arm, and she was crying in pain because of the burns.

“I asked the troop executive officer if we could stop and help the family, and I was told that the medical supplies we had were limited, and that we may need them. I informed him that I would donate my share to that girl, but we didn’t stop to help her.”

Pablo and Kevin are the real heroes — for standing up against Bush’s war. And around the U.S., people are rallying to their defense — and turning the tables on Washington’s war machine.

They will hold pickets and protests to put George Bush’s war — and not the war resisters — on trial. Here, Socialist Worker convenes a court of the people — to hear testimony in the trial of an immoral and unjust war.

IN HIS OWN DEFENSEPablo Paredes

Naval petty officer third class, facing a special court-martial for refusing to board his ship, the USS Bonhomme Richard, last December when it left for the Persian Gulf.

I ELECTED to carry a cross with me — a cross that will take away my freedom, and incarcerate me for a time. My family and a community of caring people who have embraced this struggle help me carry this minor cross.

But it is those for whom I carry this minor cross who truly need our help. It is the Iraqis — who die for nothing more than believing they have a right to exist in their own country — who need help. It is the Iraqi families who lose children, mothers and fathers for no other reason than believing they have a right to breathe their own air.

It is the misled soldiers, with heroism in their heart and courage in their blood, who die at the hands of those they are misled into believing they are helping — it is they who need help carrying their cross. It is the families here at home who are left alone to mourn these unjust losses. It is the communities who are losing their leaders of tomorrow and their resources of today, who desperately need our help.

It is humanity as a whole that is carrying the mighty weight of unprovoked, unnecessary and unjust violence.

Unfortunately, many have removed themselves so far from the realities of places like Iraq that they can use a warped sense of cost-benefit analysis to make decisions — such as how much money can be made versus how many American lives can be lost before public opinion shifts.

These same war profiteers who never look their victims in the eye expect the citizenry of the world to follow suit and give up the quality which makes us human. They want us to watch filtered news and cleansed reports, and give a thumbs-up to the brutal murders that happen daily in Iraq and elsewhere. They want us to pretend Iraqis are not human beings — they are “Islamic fundamentalists,” they are “terrorists,” they are “insurgents” trying to murder our young boys over there.

The beneficiaries of war — measured easiest as those who wouldn’t dream of taking part in war themselves, yet who reap the profits daily — would like us to believe that American lives matter, and Iraqi lives don’t.

I call on everyone who hears my voice, or reads these words, to reclaim their humanity. Refuse, as every member of humanity should, to promote this mass violence against innocent people.

IN HER HUSBAND’S DEFENSEMonica Benderman

Wife of Sgt. Kevin Benderman, a mechanic and eight-year veteran of the Army who faces a general court-martial after he applied for conscientious objector status last year before his unit was scheduled to redeploy to Iraq.

WHAT IT comes down to is freedom. We are not all that free in America if soldiers are subjected to what Kevin is dealing with now. The commanders are angry because they cannot control Kevin. They are using laws put in place that are designed to take away personal freedom, and give power and control to those who feel they deserve it.

Kevin is free...no matter what anyone says. Kevin has won, no matter what anyone does. He has not lost control of himself, and he has not allowed anyone to control him with laws and behaviors that go against the moral laws of a higher order.

War is nothing more than trying to control something or someone in the same manner that individuals are trying to control Kevin, just on a grander scale. When we realize the true definition of freedom lies in one’s ability to control oneself, with true regard for other human beings, we will begin to achieve peace. Peace in our world will start when people find peace within themselves. When we begin to treat others with exactly the same respect that we are asking for ourselves, wars will become obsolete, and relationships among people will become what they are meant to be.

It seems so simple. Why are they making it so tough? Because no one really wants to look at themselves, and change what they know to be wrong inside. It’s so much easier to point out what is “wrong” about others than it is to look inside.

I am proud of Kevin. I have watched an amazing transformation. No matter what, Kevin will always have himself and the knowledge that no battle from here on will be as tough as the one he fought with himself to become strong.

EXPERT TESTIMONYHoward Zinn

Veteran of the Second World War and a leading activist in the antiwar struggle for more than a half century since. Author of numerous books, including A People’s History of the United States and the newly released Voices of a People’s History.

AFTER THE First World War, Albert Einstein said, “Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.”

In fact, I believe the crucial factor in bringing the Vietnam War to an end was that the government could no longer rely on the military. There was a deterioration of morale, a growing understanding on the part of soldiers that they did not belong in Vietnam, that they were unwanted by the Vietnamese people, that they were doing terrible things to human beings. So the government faced increasing desertions, and protests from returning veterans.

I believe that we are beginning to see the same things in this war in Iraq. I applaud the courageous actions of Camilo Mejía, Pablo Paredes, Kevin Bendermen — those young people who refuse to participate in this immoral war, and their families who are organizing, speaking out, demonstrating and trying to do everything they can to end this brutal war and bring the troops home now.

We have seen over the past two years a steady erosion of support for the war, as the public has become more and more aware that the Iraqi people, who were supposed to greet the U.S. troops as “liberators,” are overwhelmingly opposed to the occupation. They want the U.S. to leave.

And even though the corporate media have been reluctant to show the U.S. soldiers with amputated limbs or Iraqis killed by our bombs, some of those images have started to break through. Soldiers returning home have started to tell their stories — to describe what is really happening in Iraq. And some have refused to return to fight in this war — which is not a war for democracy or freedom, but a war for oil and for power.

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONYDr. Salam Ismael

General secretary of the Doctors for Iraq Society, who helped to organize relief efforts during the U.S. siege of Falluja.

I AM so glad that I have the opportunity to express directly the feeling of Iraqis who have suffered from the unpardonable war that your government has imposed on us.

Currently, I’m in the Netherlands to speak about my experiences under U.S. occupation. I am a 29-year-old doctor, and the NGO that I work for coordinates doctors throughout Iraq to provide what relief we can for Iraq’s deteriorating health system. We work in medical teams in conflict areas inside Iraq, and we have been witnesses to many war crimes committed by George W. Bush. We worked in Falluja during the siege, in Najaf, Karbala and Basra.

I came to the Netherlands to ask Mr. Bush, who’s traveling here for the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, a question. Mr. Bush, you said that you waged this bloody war because Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. But who gave Saddam Hussein these weapons in the first place? It wasn’t me, of course. It was the U.S. and Britain, your country and your ally. You knew very well the capabilities of Saddam Hussein because your government created them.

Later on, you said (by the way, why are you always changing your mind?) that the war on Iraq was to remove Saddam Hussein from power. But now, two years have passed since the invasion, and Saddam Hussein in his jail cell is practically the only person in Iraq who knows the security of a safe room and good food, away from the bombs and the death. And still he has not faced a trial.

Mr. Bush, if you say that this bloody war was waged to bring democracy to Iraq, I ask what democracy are you talking about? What about the 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed so far? What about the more than 60,000 Iraqi prisoners? What about Abu Ghraib? Iraq is now a destination for every terrorist who has a beef with the U.S. Who opened the borders for them? You did. Who dissolved the army and the police? You did.

In the two years since the invasions, the health system has gone from bad to worse. Where are the medical supplies you promised?

What about government corruption? Let me give you an example, Mr. Bush. They are changing the marble in the front yard of my hospital and issuing laptops to department heads. But there is barely enough food for the next two months in this hospital. And what about the hundreds of trucks bringing tainted food into the country every day, without even minimal safety inspections?

The only moment I cried came one day after the invasion of Baghdad. While another doctor and I were in an ambulance, we saw an American tank shooting at the front gate of the Iraqi museum. Then looters entered to steal and destroy the cultural history, not just of Iraq but of all humanity.

I saw with my own eyes how the museum security guards pleaded with the American soldiers to stop the looters — but they did nothing. As I watched a man smash a 4,000-year-old sculpture on the ground, I cried. At that moment, I realized, Mr. Bush, that you came in order to destroy our culture and our history.

I will never forget, Mr. Bush, the genocide that you committed in Falluja. I was there during the siege of Falluja, and I saw that the supposed terrorists that you killed were actually women and children. In reality, you are the terrorist.

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONYJo Wilding

Peace activist who has visited Iraq numerous times before and after the invasion, and who is now working with Circus2Iraq, performing and running workshops for Iraqi children.

I went into the town of Falluja on April 10-11 and again on April 14-16. The intention was to take medical supplies into the town because I and other internationals in Baghdad had been told that local drivers were unable to get supplies in.

On arrival, we went to a clinic that was being used as a field hospital. The doctors told us the main hospital had been closed down by U.S. troops who were occupying it, and that the smaller one was still functioning, but was cut off by what they called “Sniper Alley”—U.S. troops who would not let ambulances and supplies through.

The clinic had a generator because electricity had been cut to the whole town. That meant most buildings were without running water. Blood bags were stored in a drinks refrigerator and warmed up under tap water. The clinic was not equipped with anesthetic or surgical or life support facilities.

Within about ten minutes of our arrival, a family came in, extremely distressed. The women were brought through to the office and told us they had been trying to flee their home, which was in a U.S.-held part of the town, when they were fired on by US Marines.

A young boy, perhaps 10 years old, had been shot in the head and had wet himself. He was operated on, unconscious, and all the lights went out because the generator cut out. The doctors carried on trying to save him—first by the flame of a cigarette lighter, and then by flashlight. He didn’t live, nor did his older sister.

Another family came in, an old woman who had been shot in the abdomen and foot, still holding a white flag. Her son told the same story—of trying to leave their home in a U.S.-held area and being fired on by Marines.

We were asked to go out collecting casualties and bodies in the U.S.-held area, and agreed. Among other things, we were able to evacuate the patients from the smaller hospital, which had run out of almost all supplies, and take them to Baghdad on the bus we had traveled in on. We were able to move about by holding our passports out of the windows and shouting in English to the troops that we were internationals.

We also evacuated a large number of people, mostly children, women or elderly, from a street in no-man’s land and from a house whose roof the Marines were occupying. The father of one of the families had been shot dead trying to get the car to take two sick members of the family to the clinic. He had a small entry wound in his back and his chest was torn open at the front by the bullet exiting, so it was clear that he’d been shot in the back. He was unarmed, and it was apparent that no one could have removed a weapon from his hand after the killing, because the family was pinned inside the house, terrified to come out. He was about 50 to 60 years old and dressed in a long white tunic.

On trying to leave Falluja, we found a large line of traffic stopped at a U.S. checkpoint. A number of cars were driving away—the people in them said they were shot at when they tried to approach, and it was not possible to get out of Falluja. We approached, again with hands up and shouting through the megaphone. The soldiers eventually responded that they would not “fire any more warning shots.”

They initially agreed that women and children could pass the checkpoint. That meant most of the cars couldn’t pass because the drivers were mostly men. We negotiated that one man per car would be allowed through, if he was the driver and with his family. One of the soldiers said to us, “We want to keep them in there, so we can kill them all more easily.”

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONYJustin Alexander

Member of the Christian Peacemaker Teams and coordinator of Jubilee Iraq, who maintains a blog at www.justinalexander.net.

THE TEXAN soldier guarding Camp Bukka Prison, who had signed up for the National Guard to get through college, looked perturbed: “I dunno why we’re still here,” he said, “we just seem to be making Iraqis more angry. I think most of the people in here haven’t done anything wrong.”

Since early March, I have been traveling unarmed around Iraq with Christian Peacemaker Teams. Everywhere I go — while always receiving the warmest Iraqi hospitality — I hear more stories of random shootings, ongoing abuses and systematic injustice. Every Iraqi has a story to tell about family members killed or detained by the American army, and about the terror he or she has experienced during a midnight house raid, or when a convoy of Humvees speed through central Baghdad, training their guns on unarmed pedestrians.

Iraqis understand that many of the soldiers themselves, like the guard at Camp Bukka, do not agree with what they are doing. The problem is with the politicians who continue to place soldiers, brainwashed by the media and military with negative stereotypes of Iraqis, in places where they cannot understand the dynamics or language. Instead of bringing security, these terrified and hence trigger-happy soldiers continue to murder hundreds of the innocent Iraqis they are supposed to have liberated, and their presence incites further violence from terrorists and insurgents.

One of my closest Iraqi friends, along with his curly black hair and his deep poet’s eyes, has only half a right ear. It was clipped off 10 years ago when, as a conscript, he refused to fight against Kurds. Even after he had served his long prison term, his visible disfigurement marked him out for ongoing harassment and discrimination.

I believe that he can now hold his head high and wear his half-ear with pride, for it demonstrates his courage in resisting an unjust war, and there are hundreds more like him in Iraq. The Bush regime has not begun chopping the ears off war resisters (yet) — but American soldiers who refuse to participate in this unjust war can hold their heads high, just like their brother-resisters in Iraq.

EXPERT TESTIMONYMonique Dols

Columbia University student and member of the national coordinating committee of the Campus Antiwar Network.

AT A time when “bringing democracy to the Middle East” means torturing and murdering Arabs, and “supporting the troops” means promoting a war that is uprooting and devastating the lives of thousands, it couldn’t be more critical to support the actions of antiwar soldiers.

Many have refused to go to Iraq since the start of the war. But Pablo Paredes and Kevin Benderman refuse to go down quietly. They insist on using their cases to put the war on trial. And for this they are an inspiration to everyone who wants to get U.S. troops out of Iraq.

A year ago this month, the world was outraged by the pictures from Abu Ghraib prison that showed the reality of the war in Iraq. The scandal exposed the wretched underbelly of life under occupation and cemented the disgust of millions around the world for Washington’s arrogant domination of the globe.

But one year on, the government and the media continue their cover-up job and claim that the “prisoner mistreatment” at Abu Ghraib was only the work of “a few bad apples.” A closer look at the military’s own internal inquiries shows a very different story. The torture, rape and murder at Abu Ghraib were consciously imported to Iraq by U.S. military intelligence from the prison cells of Guantánamo Bay and Afghanistan, in an attempt to quell the Iraqi resistance.

The brutal irony, of course, is that those who planned and encouraged the systematic brutality and humiliation of Iraqis are literally getting away with murder — while Paredes and Benderman face jail time for opposing the war.

Bush’s message to the world is quite simple: If you stand up to our power, we will crush you. If you are Iraqi and try to organize against our presence in your country, we will murder and “disappear” you. If you are an American soldier who refuses to be a part of our war machine, we will give you time in the brig.

We can’t let them get away with this. In order to pose a more effective opposition today, we have to reject the entire logic that is coming out of Washington today. We have to reject the idea that Iraqis need the U.S. occupation of their country. We have to reject the racist logic that paints occupation and humiliation as liberation. We have to reject the lie that U.S. bombs can ever be a force of democracy.

And in the end, we have to reject the whole of the war on terror, which is acting as a pretext for the crushing of dissent both within the United States and around the world today.

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONYDahr Jamail

Independent journalist who traveled to Iraq to report on the U.S. war and whose reports (at www.dahrjamailiraq.com) give an uncompromising view of the reality of Washington’s occupation.

HAVING SPENT eight months in Iraq as a firsthand witness to the devastation of that country, I want to give my full support to two of the biggest heroes of our time — Pablo Paredes and Kevin Benderman. They, along with other soldiers now refusing to participate in this unjust, illegal war in Iraq, stand as a beacon of hope in these dark times for our country.

Nearly every soldier I’ve spoken with inside Iraq expressed dismay at the situation and was confused about why they are even there. With each passing day, we can see clearly that the situation only continues to degrade. Scores of Iraqis are dying on a daily basis now — last week, in a three-day period in Baghdad alone, 1,365 attacks occurred on U.S. and Iraqi security forces. U.S. troops are dying at an average of nearly two every single day, with 10 times that number wounded.

All because we have a commander-in-chief who waged a war based on lies. We are now at over 1,600 dead U.S. soldiers, with more than 10 times that number severely wounded.

When men like Paredes and Benderman take a stand, it sends a clear message to the powers that be that they symbolize that which thousands of other soldiers in Iraq believe — this is an illegal, unjust war and occupation. It is up to the people of the United States — particularly those who claim they support the troops — to give undying support for heroes like them in their efforts to stand against the horrible quagmire that is Iraq.

EXPERT TESTIMONYBill Davis

A national coordinator of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and president of International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 701 in Chicago.

AS VIETNAM veterans and Americans, we indict the Bush administration and the Pentagon for war crimes against the Iraqi people by conducting a war for profit and oil at the expense of the American people — who are made to pay for the war with their tax money, with the lack of social programs that have be cut or eliminated to fund the war, and with the lives of their children.

We indict George Bush for attacking the veterans’ health care system. The very people who fight the wars are also people whose health care systems are under attack. Veteran Administration spending is failing to grow with health costs — it would take at least a 13 to 14 percent hike in the VA’s health care budget just to maintain the status quo. The Bush administration at best is offering a 5.4 percent increase.

We indict the Bush administration for placing the burden of the war on service members and their families. The Pentagon has tried to cut the pay of troops while they were serving in the field, but were unsuccessful due to the outcry from not only people across the country, but a lot of the military establishment itself and all the veterans organizations. The Bush administration backed off of it, but they have found other ways. They cut $200 million from Impact Aid, a program that helps military children receive a quality education.

We indict the Bush administration for the mistreatment of the U.S. troops themselves. The young men and women who are in Iraq are not getting the honors they deserve. Bush has yet to attend funerals for people who have died in Iraq. He could care less.

The Army is investigating cases of poor treatment for Iraq War veterans. It learned that hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. veterans, including many who served in the war, are languishing while they wait sometimes for months to see doctors. Particularly the National Guard and reserve troops are being treated like second-class citizens and second-class veterans. They are being warehoused in rows of spare, steamy and dark cement barracks, in places where no one can get in touch with them. At one point, some of them were being made to pay for their own meals and toilet paper.

The Bush administration wants to run this war on the cheap. When you have a cabinet full of people who are nothing more than a bunch of CEOs waiting to return to their companies while serving the Bush administration, you can see why they want to run this war and the government like a corporation. What that means is outsourcing and cutbacks.

We feel that the Bush administration should be indicted for war crimes of the most rank nature in Iraq. Those who ordered the bombing and killing of civilians — as well as the higher-ranking people who were in charge of programs in various holding facilities where people were tortured in Iraq and Afghanistan — should be put on trial, not just the enlisted people who were carrying out the wishes of these commanders.

These are war crimes. These are crimes against the people of Iraq. And they’re being done at the expense of the American people. People like Pablo and Kevin have every right to stand up and refuse to serve under these conditions in what is an illegal and immoral war.